Articles Posted in Construction Accidents

by

The Illinois Supreme Court has ruled that the mailbox rule applies when filing a notice of appeal. That means that if an appellant seeks an appeal to a higher court, the notice of appeal time is satisfied as long as the notice is mailed to the Clerk of the Circuit Court before the 30-day deadline expires. That is the case no matter when the notice of appeal is actually received and stamped as filed. The appellate court has also decided that the same principles of the mailbox rule apply to filing initial complaints or seeking post-judgment relief under §2-1401 of the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure.

The question for the Illinois Supreme Court was whether the mailbox rule applied to Mark Gruszeczka’s request for judicial review of a ruling by the Workers’ Compensation Commission.

Gruszeczka alleged that he was injured while working for Alliance Contractors. He claimed  he was entitled to benefits under the Illinois Workers’ Compensation Act. An arbitrator ruled against him, and there was no dispute that the mailbox rule applied when he asked the commission to review that decision.

Continue reading

by

In a lawsuit against ExxonMobil Corp., four individuals claimed injury and death because they were exposed to benzene and other hazardous chemicals when they worked as rubber workers, tire builders and final finish laborers at a tire manufacturing facility.  The cases were brought by the families of these deceased workers for their wrongful deaths and survival claims. In the circuit court, the claims were dismissed on summary judgment being timed-barred. This case was filed in Wisconsin and the plaintiffs appealed to the Wisconsin Court of Appeals.

In the lawsuit that was filed, the four individuals also claimed that they suffered personal injuries and died as a result of their exposure to benzene and benzene-containing materials. 

It was determined by the trial judge that the statute of limitations began to run for all claims at the latest on the decedents’ dates of death and that the complaint, which was filed more than three years (statute of limitations in Wisconsin), after those dates was time-barred because the three years had passed.

Continue reading

by

Christopher Sojka was working as a carpenter on Chicago’s Trump Tower as it was under construction in 2008. While standing on the upper floors of the construction project, Sojka attempted to fix a steel cable when the wind knocked him back and a piece of metal struck him in the eye causing serious injuries. Although Sojka was wearing safety glasses, they did not fit his face correctly. A small gap was left at the top of his eyes, allowing the debris to penetrate.

Sojka brought a lawsuit against Bovis Lend Lease in the Circuit Court of Cook County for recovery of his injuries. The case was removed to the federal district court in Chicago because the parties had complete diversity of citizenship in that Sojka was domiciled in Illinois and Bovis was a Florida corporation with its principal place of business in New York. The amount in controversy to make the jurisdictional level exceeded $75,000.

The complaint that Sojka filed contained one count for construction negligence, a cause of action recognized in Illinois law. It was also alleged in the complaint that Bovis had a duty to provide a safe workplace; Sojka listed seven theories about how Bovis had violated that duty. One of the first theories was that Bovis knew or should have known that the weather conditions at the site were unsafe at the time of Sojka’s injury.

Continue reading

by

A 53-year-old construction worker was riding down a hotel elevator when it malfunctioned. The elevator dropped more than two floors and came to a hard stop as the emergency brake engaged. The worker was wearing a work belt with heavy carpenter tools on it. He was thrown into a metal instrument panel. The worker suffered herniated disks at C4-5 and L5-S1 and a left shoulder labrum tear that required surgery.

The construction worker continued to suffer pain and limited range of motion in his neck, back and shoulder. His medical bills total $236,000.

As a master carpenter, the worker was not able to return to the same level of carpentry that he did in the past. He now does part-time carpentry work.

Continue reading

by

A lawsuit was brought on behalf of the plaintiff, Gerardo Solis, alleging negligence and strict liability because his lungs were injured by a synthetic chemical that he used while working in a flavoring company. At the trial court level, the judge entered a directed verdict in favor of Solis on the defendant distributor’s claim that the action was barred by the statute of limitations.

The Solis claim was that his lungs were injured while he worked with diacetyl, a synthetic chemical used in artificial butter flavoring. Solis’s claim was that the defendant BASF Corp. (BASF) and one of the distributors failed to warn of the dangerous product and was negligent in allowing its use by its employees.

After a jury heard this case at trial, it returned a verdict for $32 million in favor of Solis, and BASF appealed. At the core of the appeal was that BASF claimed that the trial court erred by directing a verdict in favor of Solis on BASF’s statute of limitations defense. BASF had argued that there was evidence that Solis was aware of his lung injury and its wrongful cause more than two years before this suit was filed.

Continue reading

by

After the collapse of a bridge deck on Route 154 near Sparta, Ill., the general contractor, Keeley & Sons, used a jackhammer to break up the concrete I-beam that allegedly caused the accident.

Three workers were on the bridge deck when it collapsed. The issue in this case was whether there was a duty of the defendant, Keeley & Sons, to preserve evidence. The Illinois Supreme Court held there were insufficient facts to establish a duty on Keeley & Sons based on a voluntary undertaking.

The trial court in St. Clair County, Ill., entered an order granting summary judgment for Keeley & Sons finding that it had no duty to preserve the I-beam after this occurrence. The appellate court had reversed the summary judgment order, but the Supreme Court has now reversed the appellate court and affirmed the trial court’s decision.

Continue reading

by

In a close case decided by the Illinois Appellate Court, Third District, defendant Will County Washington Township was held responsible for injuries suffered by occupants of an automobile in an accident that was alleged to have been caused by Washington Township roadway construction.

In this case, Ricky Robinson Sr. allegedly lost control of his car after hitting a pothole and construction debris on a roadway that was being fixed by Washington Township in Will County. The Robinson car turned over, injuring Rick Robinson Jr., Mr. Robinson’s son, a passenger in the car.

A lawsuit was brought against the township on behalf of Rick Jr., who was a minor, by his mother, alleging that the township was negligent because:
•

Continue reading

by

Renardo Lynch was working as a mechanic for Metra when the top rail of a chain-link fence he was installing fell on him. He injured the back of his neck and shoulders. In a lawsuit that was filed under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act, 45 U.S.C. 51, (FELA), the lower court granted a summary judgment motion brought by Metra. Lynch took this appeal to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago.

Lynch was hired by Metra in 1987 in the track department but was moved to bridges and building where he held a number of different positions. When Lynch was injured, he was working as a bridge and building mechanic. Part of that job was installing fences at railroad crossings and depots. Although Metra did provide some training regarding these duties, no training was given to Lynch in installing fencing.

The installation of fences was a routine job done several times per month. When Lynch was injured, he was being assisted by a co-worker installing the mesh part of the fence; they were on their knees next to each other tightening brackets at the bottom of the fence post. The top rail of the fence fell, hitting Lynch across the back of his neck and shoulders. Lynch missed 28-30 days of work. Metra acknowledged that there was nothing Lynch or his co-workers did to cause the pole to fall.

Continue reading

by

Manufacturers have an obligation to make their products safe for regular use. However, how far does this obligation extend? Are manufacturers required to make it overly difficult for consumers to modify their products? A recent Illinois Appellate Court decision examines to what extent manufacturers are liable for after-market modifications made to their products; Geronimo Perez v. Sunbelt Rentals, Inc., et al., Nos. 2-11-0382, 2-11-0486 cons (April 9, 2012).

In January 2008, Geronimo Perez was injured while using a scissor lift machine manufactured by JLG Industries. In his product liability lawsuit, Perez claimed that his injury could have been prevented if there had been a guardrail on the scissor lift machine. What is interesting about Perez is that JLG Industries had installed a guardrail when it designed its scissor lift; however, someone had removed the guardrail after the scissor lift machine left JLG’s factory.

So while JLG Industries had designed its scissor lift machine so that falls like Perez’s would be prevented, someone unconnected to the company had removed that safety feature. Yet Perez alleged that JLG was liable because it should have foreseen that someone would remove that guardrail, thereby causing his subsequent fall. JLG countered that it was not responsible for modifications others made to its product and that its scissor lift machine’s design was not defective.

Continue reading

by

While not every civil lawsuit requires a party to hire an expert, there are some instances where an expert’s opinion and testimony are vital to the case’s outcome. For example, if a plaintiff is making medical malpractice claims against a doctor or hospital, he or she will likely hire a medical expert to help support those claims. Likewise, in a product liability lawsuit, a party would generally need to hire some sort of expert to help prove that there was in fact a design or manufacturing defect. The vital nature of these experts’ testimony means that if for some reason those experts’ opinions are barred, the plaintiff will have an extremely difficult time proving the defendant’s negligence.

This is exactly what happened in the product liability lawsuit of Raymond Bielskis v. Louisville Ladder, Inc., No. 10-1194 (November 18, 2011). Bielskis filed a lawsuit against Louisville Ladder in which he claimed that its scaffolding design was defective and caused his work injury. In order to prove his claims, Bielskis’s attorneys had hired an engineering expert. After the trial court barred the engineering expert’s testimony, Bielskis filed an appeal in which he asked the court to reinstate his expert’s testimony.

Bielskis arose out of a fall Bielskis had while using a scaffold constructed by Louisville Ladder. Bielskis had originally purchased the scaffold in 1997 while working as an acoustical ceiling carpenter for R.G. Construction. During that time, Bielskis was responsible for providing the equipment and scaffolding for most of his jobs. However, in 2001, Bielskis began working for International Decorators, who generally supplied its workers with scaffolding equipment. As a result, Bielskis rarely used his Louisville Ladder scaffold after switching employers in 2001.

Then in 2005, Bielskis decided to use his Louisville Ladder scaffold on a job. Bielskis inspected the scaffold’s condition before using it; however, not noting any problems, Bielskis determined it was safe to use. But when he placed his weight onto one of the scaffold’s caster stems, the scaffold broke and collapsed. Bielskis fell and injured himself; that scaffolding injury is the subject of the current lawsuit.

Continue reading